Category: Theory of History Wide Open
Jana Kristin Hoffmann & Philipp McLean – Theories of history have gained considerable prominence in recent scholarship. Much has been written on the significance of theory in the field of historical science. Since Reinhart Koselleck’s seminal essay, ‘Wozu noch Historie?’ (Why History?), published in 1970, it has become evident that historical science is fundamentally dependent on theoretical foundations. Furthermore, the cultural turn and the advent of the digital humanities have led to a proliferation of theoretical approaches. There is also increasing recognition of the need for theoretical discussions, with the question of what constitutes historical theory remaining a topic of ongoing debate. However, a gap persists in the (university) teaching of historical-theoretical thinking in connection with the instruction of historical research practice.
Bennett Gilbert – We are inside of history; we are history in the becoming. We need to learn from the past, but we do not. Why do we hide history? Why does the power of the past to connect us to others often fail?
Editorial Board – How does this object demonstrate the interweaving of theory and empirical evidence in historical research?
Any idea? Please, leave a comment here.
Koselleck 100
Ethan Kleinberg – Consider the Komposita “KoselleckConceptGhost” (Koselleckbegriffgespenst). The agglutination is not stable, and it is unclear which term should lead the way. If it is Koselleck, or Koselleck’s ghost, that leads, then the injunction is to investigate the semantic value of the word “ghost” to determine whether there has been a change in its valence and significance over time.
Koselleck 100
Giuseppe Duso – There are times when an image can be particularly poignant for communicating a vision of politics because it not only “speaks” to the observer, but also almost seems to express a theoretical argument.
Contributo in italiano Post in English
Koselleck 100
Victor Neumann – Translation from German into Romanian requires terminological equivalences for two national communities with different linguistic origins, heritages, and cultural landmarks, and which live in different temporalities. Since the meaning of modernity is different, translating a fundamental concept into Romanian requires contextualization and an understanding of its meaning in both languages. Translating Koselleck requires motivating the reader, inviting them to become a co-discoverer of the other’s past and present and their own, as well as to encounter the personal experience and memory of the historian.
Post in Romanian Post in English
Koselleck 100
Victor Neumann – Traducerea din limba germană în limba română necesită echivalări terminologice pentru două comunități naționale avînd origini lingvistice diferite, moșteniri și repere culturale diferite și trăind în temporalități diferite. Fiind vorba de un înțeles diferit al ideii de modernitate, traducerea în limba română a unui concept fundamental înseamnă informare, contextualizare, o înțelegere a semnificației lui în ambele limbi. Cît privește traducerea lui Koselleck, aceasta necesită motivarea cititorului, asocierea lui în calitate de co-descoperitor al trecutului și al prezentului celuilalt și al său propriu, familiarizarea cu experiența personală și memoria istoricului.
Post in Romanian Post in English
Koselleck 100
Jeffrey Andrew Barash – In 1982 I took the initiative to write to Reinhart Koselleck, although I had never met him, to ask if he would be willing to serve as the sponsor of my application for an Alexander von Humboldt-Fellowship. I had just defended my doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago, entitled Martin Heidegger and the Problem of Historical Meaning, and I returned to Paris to apply for grants that would permit me to rewrite my thesis for publication as a book. Upon receiving my letter, Koselleck kindly invited me to give a talk in Bielefeld on a topic of my choice.
Koselleck 100
Federico Marcon – An investigation into the semantic value of “fascism” immediately presents the paradox of a term that confronts us, on the one hand, with connotative clarity—everybody instinctively understands that it means something bad—and, on the other, with a bewildering excess of meanings. Its polysemy is an embarrassment for historical semantics, which strives to contain and order its content, as it is for the practitioners of Begriffsgeschichte, who attempt to register its variations from a core meaning that “fascism” does not have.
Koselleck 100
Margrit Pernau – Koselleck’s metaphor of the layers of sedimentation (Zeitschichten) was and continues to be one of his most productive ideas. Instead of assuming a neat division between the past and the present, this metaphor allows to explore ways in which the past retains its presence in the present. Like in the process of sedimentation – Koselleck here draws on geological knowledge – older layers of history never disappear, but get overlaid by newer deposits. Koselleck’s metaphor has repeatedly translated into visuals.
